Dieter Ackermann,Thomas Lange

Sea of paraffin on industrial estate

A devastating fire that started at a candle factory in the south of Israel destroyed three buildings accommodating production facilities and a raw materials store.Two companies were affected, suffering losses exceeding US$ 9m.

An employee at a neighbouring company saw thick clouds of smoke billowing up beside the candle factory_s production building and alerted the fire brigade immediately. He then ran to the place where he suspected the fire to be. He found an extensive area flooded with burning wax.

Several workers and the warehouse manager were trying to fight the fire using portable fire extinguishers. In next to no time, a blazing sea of liquid paraffin flared up in the courtyard between the production building and the warehouse, forcing the helpers to flee. The courtyard was divided down the middle by a wall almost 2 m high, on both sides of which blocks of wax were stored on pallets.

However, the wall could not impede the fire because of a vigorous wind which helped the flames spread to the pallets. A considerable time elapsed before the fire brigade arrived. There were not enough appliances on the scene in the initial stages of fire fighting, and later on - when there were twelve fire companies in action altogether - the water supply ran out, which meant that the firefighters had little chance against the blaze.

next page »

The flaming inferno spreads

As a result of the heat emanating from the burning sea of paraffin, the blocks of wax in the courtyard melted very quickly. The flames thus had ample fuel and were driven towards the warehouse by what was now a strong wind. There they ignited further supplies of raw wax stored over an area measuring 3,000 m2 and the candles that were already in their packaging.

The molten wax quickly crossed what had been considered a safe 20 m to the adjacent metalworking company. The plant produced aluminium containers and lids for the candle factory; its raw materials store and production facilities were devoured by the flames. The firefighters were still not able to get the sea of fire under control.

Even a hefty west wind could not stop the fire on the liquid wax from raging in the opposite direction, with the result that the two-storey production building was completely gutted. Only an office building, a smaller production facility some distance away, and a store were spared. A major loss was considered improbable. An expert report written before the loss event had stated that there were sufficient numbers of portable fire extinguishers in all the buildings. The production building had a smoke detection system. Even manual fire detectors with a direct connection to the nearest fire brigade were installed.

However, the fire-protection installations had not been inspected and approved by the authorities. All the company's buildings that were exposed to the hazard of fire were equipped with hoses. Candle production was monitored using video cameras. A central fire-alarm system was installed. Sprinkler systems were in place in the production building and in the two other buildings. In view of the favourable situation with regard to fire detection and fire fighting and the distances separating the buildings, the insurers were of the opinion that the risk of a major loss occurring was low.

Why then should it have come to this gigantic fire loss?

« previous page  |  next page »

Deficiencies in the fire precautions

The destruction was so extensive that it was impossible to identify the cause of the fire. Subsequently, however, it was found that the main valve of the water supply for the sprinklers in the warehouse was shut. Also, there were no maintenance plans in place, and nobody was responsible for checking and maintaining the sprinkler system.

Although the sprinklers in the production building responded, they had no effect on the formidable fire. The loss was made even worse by the fact that the water supply was used up so quickly by the twelve fire companies.

This made it impossible to prevent the production building from burning down completely. The amount paid out by the company_s fire insurance was reduced even further because the special requirements stipulated by an expert commissioned by the authorities had not been met.

Although dry powder units were earmarked for the affected buildings, they were not in place. Some of fire-extinguishing equipment had defective pipes which had not been repaired.

Indemnification

The company was insured against property damage caused by fire and against the resulting loss of production. The calculation of the real loss showed that the company was substantially underinsured in terms of business interruption and in terms of the value attributed to the stored products.

The fire insurer settled the claim for the fire in the two plants at US$ 9.3m altogether.

« previous page